Anyway, the one thing I didn't see much addressed in this thread is the effect of context. As in, going back to what the original poster was saying about change... It's hard to tell if you've really changed, or if you've just been put into a life situation that has shaped your personality in certain ways.

These days I'm far more introverted than I used to be, but I blame that on context and not a personality change.

I'm not sure if it fits exactly as a "personality trait" while it is a psychological mode of operation (actually I'd say is more of an associative network?). I suppose that is why it doesn't show up in factor analysis based tests like OCEAN, since people likely have different frames for different activities so they do not have strong self correlation. Nontheless the near-far idea does have psychological importance thus "feels right" to be included in the exam nonetheless.

Now, I haven't developed my understanding about nearfar to have a comprehensive hypothesis about how all this integrates, but it is exciting to find connections in different ideas to explore. It really does point to an way into clarifying the S-N scale that have been confusing me for a while, as can be seen in earlier posts.
--
So yeah I've changed

Well it's not perfect, but it does give somewhat meaningful results and breaks down personality into various factors that people can easily digest and understand.
That's not so bad.

Click to expand...

So do horoscopes. They have the same level of empirical support. Not that I'm saying horoscopes are bad, but people should be honest about what the tests are doing: providing some vague adjectives which may or may not apply to you, so you can recognize the accurate ones and ignore the inaccurate ones. It's helping you describe yourself to other people, it's a thesaurus, not a test for something you didn't know about yourself.

I've always had intense difficulty with tests like these. My responses to the vast majority of the questions are things like:

"Sometimes yes, sometimes no."
"In what context?"
"That is not applicable to my life or experience."
"I don't understand."
"I don't know."
"I am not aware of having strong feelings one way or the other."
"I don't believe it is possible to know one way or the other."
"That depends on how you define [ambiguous word used in question]."

I just took the humanmetrics.com test Xom linked in the OP, and was told:

You haven’t answered 67 questions. There is not enough data to complete the analysis. Click your browser’s "Back" button to answer the remaining questions and try again. Or click here to start from scratch.

You know one major problem with measures like the MBTI is that they implicitly assume that each individual has one overarching true "self" to be evaluated and understood. There's some research research in social psychology that would argue against that point.

With MBTI is is, or at least should be, all about the functions. While I consider the MBTI and even more so Jungian Cognitive Functions a valuable tool, I've become highly critical of most online tests because they usually do not measure functions but preference. In my opinion, they're doing more harm than good.

There is zero functional overlap. If you look at the functions - which the MBTI is based on - it's almost impossible to vacillate between INTJ and INTP. It just doesn't make any sense. Changing from an INTP to an INTJ would mean complete neurological re-wiring. That's extremely unlikely to happen. A difference in only one letter can be huge. So don't go by the letters, go by the functions.

Indeed a tool for personality description. My following results I expected in being conditioned by rich engineering education and being naturally shy. I took the test 3 times for a mean.

INTJ; 78% Introvert; 62% intuitive; 75% thinking; 67% judging.

Tests are limited by their design for the masses. They are limited in understanding because there's many variables and great diversity, hence unhelpful if one seeks understanding or has it.

Click to expand...

I would say rich engineering education would put you in ISTJ as opposed to INTJ as there is a lot of praise for applied knowledge and practical application. That being said and also coming from an engineering education:

Nope, I'm pretty sure MBTI is useless at best and dangerously misleading at worst. The Wikipedia page has a good summary of the criticisms leveled against it, and the thing that really scares me is how popular MBTI is relative to its problems.

One thing I think is weird about this test is that supposedly INFJs are one of the rarest types, comprising only ~1% of the population. Regardless, myself and like half of my friends are apparently INFJs. Maybe it's just a birds of a feather thing, but it still seems a little nuts.

I just took this test and clicked through to see what jobs were recommended for me. Apparently I should have gone into either Archaeology, Counseling or Religious Studies... see if you can figure out my letters from that

Spoiler(Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content)Show SpoilerHide Spoiler

Your score on Openness to Experience is average, indicating you enjoy tradition but are willing to try new things. Your thinking is neither simple nor complex. To others you appear to be a well-educated person but not an intellectual.

My advice is to not take this personality test seriously at all...it has nothing to do with empirics. Jung, upon whom the personality type ideas used in this test are founded, openly rejected the scientific method because objective evidence contradicted his ideas.

Here's something that never ceases to amazing me:

So many people I know think that standardized testing is BS. They argue that IQ testing, high school graduation exams, the SAT (in the U.S.), etc etc are invalid or unsound for all sorts of reasons.

At least that kind of testing, while it has a lot of limitations, is statistically predictive of demonstrable facts about a person. Jungian personality types have no empirical basis and do not lead to information that can be used practically. The MBTI in particular has several flaws that undermine the validity of the test process (and that's not even getting into the soundness of Jungian personality types as a factual concept.)

[non-trolling] I think if you want a high quality self-reported assessment of yourself, maybe you can try the 'Big 5' tests like IPIP NEO.

Click to expand...

I also did this test. I guess self-reported of course help you to believe that the test accurately describes you, whether you think it is flawed like MBTI or you think it's solid like IPIP NEO. This is because the test is repeating back to you what you told it. It's pretty easy to be affected by confirmation bias like this. I think being self-reported already does things. It still feels fulfilling in a way though. Posting it is the most fulfilling I think. People are always trying to find out more about you if they are interested in you, and posting your personality results is a fairly easy way to tell them "This is what I think I am" in a way that has been standardized.

So that means it's time for my IPIP NEO results. gufufufu

Spoiler(Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content)Show SpoilerHide Spoiler

Your score on Neuroticism is low, indicating that you are exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable. You do not react with intense emotions, even to situations that most people would describe as stressful.

It's inconsistent. 50% of people switches personality types when retaking the test. MBTI has a bad reputation in measuring how well you do on your job, but even the best of these tests still they do not have high correlation (~.3).

“Only after I had familiarized myself with alchemy did I realize that the unconscious is a process, and that the psyche is transformed or developed by the relationship of the ego to the contents of the unconscious.”

I have taken the Myers-Brigg several times throughout my life and each time I was ENTP. With the exception of T, my scores were all reasonably balanced. The last time I took the test, I got a 100% for T.